The Impact of the Cultural Beliefs on Forming and Designing Spatial Organizations,Spaces Hierarchy,and Privacy of Detached Houses and Apartments in Jordan

Abstract

Cultural beliefs and architecture have been recognized as having a strong relationship. However, a gap in knowledge exists regarding the interaction between culture and spatial organization in domestic architecture. This research used case methods to explore the impact of cultural factors in forming and designing detached houses and apartments in Jordan. Specifically, this article aimed to explore the sociocultural impact of privacy on spatial hierarchy and spatial organization in order to ascertain sociospatial designs in Jordanian culture. The data were collected through a comprehensive analysis of plans, images, direct observation, and in-depth interviews with Jordanian household residents. The data were analyzed socially and spatially with regard to circulation, privacy, security, and spatial arrangement of indoor and outdoor spaces. This research found that cultural factors and overall traditions affect detached housing design more than apartment design in Jordan. Also, cultural beliefs and traditions in Jordan are strongly reflected in people’s values, practices, activities, and the level of privacy needed in a given home. Therefore, privacy becomes a social, religious, and personal need that Jordanian domestic architecture should accommodate. Because culture shapes humans’ worldviews, and then both culture and worldview build social and personal values to define lifestyle, clearly determine specific activities, and set residents’ requirements for the design of the components of space requisite for cultural recognition. This research recommends that housing designers should adapt to the cultural practices, beliefs, and privacy needs of a given people when designing homes. Future research is needed to replicate the study for an authentic perspective on a cross-cultural basis.

Keywords

architecture cultural beliefs detached houses apartment privacy sociocultural factor sociospatial design

Introduction

In recent years, the reciprocal influence of social behavior on architectural design has been theoretically discussed by a variety of scholars (Abell, Al Husban, Al Husban, & Lurasi, 2013). Sociocultural attributes contribute to the formation of human habitat (Kamalipour & Zaroudi, 2014). Culture influences how people use spaces (Deshpande & Korharkar, 2015). Cultural beliefs, traditions, and practices are strongly correlated with domestic architecture (Kent, 1990; Shirazi, 2005). Additionally, sociocultural meanings and factors, including cultural beliefs and social values (Rapoport, 1969), directly affect the built environment design (Richardson, 1989; Saatci & Onder, 2015).

Wagner (1969) stated, “[Dwellings] stand as the concrete expression of a complex interaction among cultural skills and norms, climatic conditions and the potentialities of natural materials” (cited in Rapoport, 1969, p. VI). Various dimensions influence housing morphology over time (Kamalipour & Zaroudi, 2014). The house is a cultural phenomenon; it is a place for rest and relaxation for humans (Manesh & Latifian, 2015). The house is built according to the needs and demands of their inhabitants (Alitajer & Nojoumi, 2016). Its physical form, social, and spatial organization is influenced by many factors and cultural values (Hashim, Ali, & Abu Samah, 2009; Kamalipour & Zaroudi, 2014; Othmann, Aird, & Buys, 2015). The house can be conceived as a symbolic social communication reflecting lifestyles and ambitions (Othmann et al., 2015).

The house has nine meanings: social relations, social networks, self-identity, privacy, continuity, personalization, activity base, childhood homes, and physical structures (Shin, 2014). Hanson (1998) defined the house as a dynamic structure that grows and changes in size and configuration according to their inhabitants’ needs.

Rapaport (1991) argued that people from different cultures and values have different houses. Additionally, Deb and Sinha (2011) found an association between physical space design and organizational behavior. The hierarchy in spatial organization can be designed depending on environmental and sociocultural factors (Shirazi, 2005). The design of any house, as a form of the built environment, should consider and reflect the behavior of human beings and the accumulation of cultural and traditional beliefs (Samadi, 2013).

Privacy is the main factor shaping the construction and design of houses in many Arab regions (Hosseini & Ali, 2015; Othmann et al., 2015). Privacy is used as the means to control personal space (Hashim et al., 2009). It ensures the safety of the family and separates private life from public associations. This involves controlling visibility to maintain the safety and privacy of family members, noise control to solidify acoustic privacy, and odor control to prevent smells from spreading to spaces where guests are entertained (Othmann et al., 2015). Therefore, the degree of privacy needs differs from both culture to culture and within the same culture (Hashim et al., 2009).

Research Problem

The association between cultural beliefs and domestic architecture is discussed and explored throughout many theoretical and practical domains and focuses on the way the built environment of neighborhoods and cities reflect attributes of a given culture (Richardson, 1989). However, a gap in knowledge is apparent regarding the impact of sociocultural factors on sociospatial design (spatial organization and space hierarchy) in the dwellings of Jordan. Spatial forms and sociocultural influences have mostly been researched on the scale of towns and neighborhoods but not on the scale of housing interiors (Abell et al., 2013).

In Jordan, as well as in many Arab settlements and Eastern countries, privacy is a central sociocultural value (Al-Homoud, 2009). It is a major criterion for both indoor and outdoor sociospatial design (Al Thahab, Mushatat, & Abdelmonem, 2014). Currently, the domestic architecture treats privacy as a reflection of environment. Additionally, housing design focuses on creating balance between aesthetic and functional values and ignores sociocultural ones (Tuztasi & Civelek, 2011). Furthermore, the Jordanian house culture has not been studied in detail, and few print publications are available. Moreover, most studies fail to address both theoretical and empirical evidence of the influence sociocultural dimensions have on the spatial organization of Jordanian houses (Kamalipour & Zaroudi, 2014).

Research Purpose

The purpose of this research was to explore the impact of the cultural beliefs and traditions have on forming and designing contemporary dwellings in Jordan. Specifically, to explore and investigate the influence of privacy as a sociocultural need on spatial organization and space hierarchy as a sociospatial design in both detached houses and apartments in Jordan as a case study of cultural reflection.

Research Questions

This research developed three research questions: What is the influence of privacy as a sociocultural need on the spatial organization as a sociospatial design of both detached houses and apartments in Jordan? Which type of dwelling, detached houses or apartments, is more affected by cultural beliefs in Jordan? Finally, how do cultural beliefs and traditions affect the design of contemporary dwellings in Jordan?

Research Significance

This research encourages architects and designers to design spaces and places according to people’s needs and augments understanding of cultural needs, psychological needs, sociocultural values, and beliefs in architectural design.

Literature Review

Dwellings’ Design

The house is a multidimensional context that includes security, comfort, privacy, enclosure, attachment, and stability needs (Samadi, 2013). The house is a cultural unit of space; it is a shelter that reflects cultural beliefs and traditions in its form and spatial arrangement (Al-Homoud, 2009). People from different cultures design their living spaces in a way that adapts and fits their sociocultural needs (Al-Homoud, 2009; Rapoport, 1991).

Currently, design mechanisms focus on formal aesthetics, economic factors, and technological methods of construction and neglect social and cultural needs (Al Thahab et al., 2014). The quality of any house design can be assessed by estimating the residential satisfaction of that design in term of sociocultural needs (Aryani, Mulyadi, & Wahyuningsih, 2015).

Culture and Dwellings’ Spatial Organization

History shows a strong association between domestic architecture and the organization of space (Kent, 1990). Kent (1990), in her book Domestic Architecture and the Use of Space, focuses on the complex interaction between domestic structures and spatial organization in addition to the role of culture in this interaction. Culture is a set of beliefs, perception, values, norms, and behaviors shared among a group of people or society (Altman & Chemers, 1980). Kent found that culture could lead to specific building forms, functions, circulations, and spatial organizations. The forms of spatial arrangement differ from country to country and depend on a specific culture’s sociocultural needs (Al Thahab et al., 2014).

Space is expressive of societal lifestyles. The spatial formation is a visual symbol and sign of culture that tells different stories about a culture’s way of life (Dursun & Saglamer, 2003). A house’s interior spaces and arrangements are mostly based on culture and traditions (Samadi, 2013). Stoner (1997) stated that the house could be represented as a link between physical setting and human behavior. In this case, spatial organization of houses can be represented as a connection between cultural beliefs and human behavior.

The separation of public/private spaces and the hierarchy of spaces summarize the impact of cultural values on housing design (Al Thahab et al., 2014). Sociocultural beliefs and values are connected to the housing space and create a system of rules and lifestyle that identify the organization of space (Dursun & Saglamer, 2003). In Arab Islamic countries, the spatial organization and the hierarchy of spaces, from public to semipublic to private spaces, are required to respect the privacy of the family (Samadi, 2013).

Privacy

Previous studies have been conducted to explore the meaning of privacy and its influence on architecture (Alitajer & Nojoumi, 2016). Deshpande and Korharkar (2015) examined and analyzed the relationship between spatial configuration and privacy within a two residential typology: The first was a build without an architect (wada), and the other was a modern dwelling designed by an architect (bungalow) using the space syntax method. Kamalipour and Zaroudi (2014) explored the relationship between sociocultural dimensions and spatial configuration in terms of design process, transformation, and morphological attributes. Kennedy, Buys, and Miller (2015) explored how to achieve privacy and comfort in multistory buildings in Brisbane/Australia. They found that the availability of outdoor private living spaces contributes directly to residents’ level of comfort, privacy, and perception of livability.

Privacy is a sociocultural need, a social value, and a form of cultural meaning (Rapoport, 1991). It can be described as a sociospatial aspect that should be considered in design strategies and a means to control space hierarchy (Al Thahab et al., 2014). Altman (1975) defined privacy as an interpersonal boundary control process. Privacy controls the relationship between openness-closeness as well as the relationship between accessibility-inaccessibility in which the multiplicity of circulation access enhances privacy (Altman, 1975).

Privacy is a cultural concept; it is the process of changing boundaries to control interactions between the self and others (Al-Homoud, 2009). It is an important factor for both indoor and outdoor sociospatial design in most traditional Arab settlements (Al Thahab et al., 2014). It can be measured by the extent to which residents can control outdoor to indoor visibility, the intensity of their interactions with neighbors, the amount of private outside spaces, and the existence of transitional and intermediate spaces (Kennedy et al., 2015).

The concept of privacy is considered an important aspect of everyday life (Hashim et al., 2009). It operates at individual, group, and organizational levels (Abdul Rahim, 2015) to determine how to interact with others (Manesh & Latifian, 2015). In Islam, privacy includes the segregation between private and public spaces to provide security for all family members (Alitajer & Nojoumi, 2016). Privacy in traditional Islamic houses involves four main layers: (a) between neighbors’ dwellings, (b) between males and females, (c) between family members inside a house, and (d) individual privacy (Othmann et al., 2015).

Public/private space means space can serve the communal/personal use: The house is considered as private space for the people who reside in it, and the bedroom is considered as a private space for those who sleep in it. The public space is the space that is open for public use and accessible to anyone. Semipublic space is the space requiring fewer roles for entering or passing through. Semiprivate space is the space requiring roles for living in it within a time period. Private space is the space requiring maximum levels of privacy and is accessible by a small group (Saatci & Onder, 2015).

Dwellings’ Design in Jordan (Detached Houses vs. Apartments)

Local culture and traditions in Jordan lead to specific spatial organizations with a well-defined hierarchy of space to serve many religious requirements and social needs (Samadi, 2013). While the Jordanian’s needs change with the passage of time, privacy is a constant need and should be fulfilled in the apartment as well as the detached house (Samadi, 2013). However, as modernity and new ways of life penetrate Jordan, so do new apartment living styles; however, such sociocultural factors have been limited and privacy needs have been minimized in this respect. This style is supported by modern architects who consider privacy issues as negatively affecting the freedom of dwelling design (Al Thahab et al., 2014).

In Jordan, detached houses and apartments show private domains in different levels. Privacy, comfort, and satisfaction of living in a house or an apartment can be achieved by the dynamics of semipublic and semiprivate areas. In the detached house, people can enlarge those spaces to feel more comfort, but in the apartment, the residents have no choice to play within those spaces (Aryani et al., 2015).

It is well known that each detached house in Jordan includes an open outdoor space and a constructed closed indoor space (Samadi, 2013). The existence of out and indoor spaces creates the first hierarchy between the public space and the private space. The semipublic space beginning in the front yard. The semiprivate beginning from the interior intermediate space. The outdoor and indoor spaces are seen as an environmental issue, because the climate in Jordan is both hot in the summer and cold in the winter (Samadi, 2013). This hierarchy is needed for social issues such as privacy and security. Therefore, the hierarchy in the spatial organization in Jordanian detached houses can be recognized and classified as a cultural practice more than environmental guideline.

Apartment design in Jordan follows the international design of residential units. In spite of that, there are different designs determined by income-level classifications and the number of bedrooms needed (Samadi, 2013). All the designs share the same spatial organization that fulfills privacy at the minimum level. In the traditional housing design, gender segregation and visual contacts are achieved much more than in apartment designs (Al Thahab et al., 2014).

Conclusion of Literature Review

Reviewing the related literature (Al Thahab et al., 2014; Al-Homoud, 2009; Altman, 1975; Aryani et al., 2015; Dursun & Saglamer, 2003; Kennedy et al., 2015; Kent, 1990; Samadi, 2013; Shirazi, 2005) found that there are different indicators for assessing the influence of sociocultural factors on housing design. Specifically, four main indicators can assess the influence of privacy as a sociocultural factor on the spatial organization of the dwellings as a sociospatial design aspect. The indicators are

the quantity of different hierarchical spaces

the existence of transitional spaces

the quantity of circulation accesses of

the existence of intermediate spaces between functional spaces (main distributor space)

The research hypothesis is that there is a strong positive association between the above indicators and privacy. Meaning, when any value from the four indicators increase, the privacy needs through spatial organization increase as well. Additionally, the influence of the sociocultural factor of privacy on sociospatial design will increase.

Research Methodology

This research used case methods to explore and provide a rich description of the impact cultural factors and traditions have on forming and designing contemporary dwellings in Jordan. A holistic exploratory case study usually focuses on a single case or a limited number of cases to generate new ideas and test a clear hypothesis or propositions (Yin, 2014).

Most spatial organization designs of traditional detached houses and apartments in Jordan (the units of analysis) are the same. Therefore, two typical case studies were purposively selected from two different Jordanian cities, Amman and Al Mafraq, to describe, analyze, and compare the similarities and differences between spatial organizations and space hierarchies while considering privacy as a sociospatial factor. This method helped address the real influence of privacy need on using interior and exterior spaces.

The data were analyzed socially and spatially with regard to circulation, privacy, security, and spatial arrangement of indoor and outdoor spaces. The influence of sociocultural factors on sociospatial design in both cases was estimated by studying and analyzing the above four privacy indicators that were found from the literature and coded as shown in Table 1.

Table 1.

Coding System of the Houses’ Privacy Indicators.

Indicator	Result	Score
1. Quantity of different hierarchical spaces	Multiple (More than two spaces)	1
	Double or single (two spaces or less)	0
2. Transitional spaces	Available	1
	Not available	0
3. Quantity of circulation accesses	Multiple	1
	Single	0
4. Intermediate space between the functional spaces	Available	1
	Not available	0

The maximum score summation for any indicator will be 4 and the minimum will be 0. Therefore, and for the purpose of this research, the privacy need was therefore considered very high if the score summation was 4; high if the score summation was 3; medium if the score summation was 2; low if the score summation was 1; and very low if the score summation was 0.

Additionally, semistructured qualitative interviews with the residents in both cases were conducted to gain a better understanding of privacy needs. The interviewees were the house owners themselves and their family members. The apartment household was a family consisting of four people: a 32-year-old husband, a 25-year-old wife, and two kids. Although they spend their weekdays at the apartment, they spend all their weekends with their larger families at farms. The household of the detached house was an extended family consisting of a father and a mother with six married daughters and two married sons. The parents were living alone with their housemaid in the big detached house; however, since their daughters’ and sons’ families visit them daily, they used all the spaces of the house. Forty-four interview participants answered approximately 30, open, qualitative questions regarding comfort, privacy, and livability in their everyday life.

Research Setting

The apartment and detached house design were chosen from two Jordanian cities: Amman, the capital, and Al Mafraq city. Amman is mostly a regional city with 3 million inhabitants. Its people are characterized by a heterogeneous cultural hybridity (Abuhakema, 2013). Amman, as all Middle Eastern Capitals, is the most developed city in the kingdom and has the highest socioeconomic status. Multistory buildings are very common in Amman’s neighborhoods, because the land cost is very high and most residences in Amman are small and modern families (Ababsa & Daher, 2011). So, one contemporary residential unit or apartment built for middle-income people was analyzed socially and spatially as a case study to explore the influence of privacy on the spatial organization of apartments.

On the other hand, Al Mafraq city is smaller than Amman, less developed, and suffers from a lack of resources and low socioeconomic status. Al Mafraq city is a tribal area where mostly all people have the same roots. Cultural beliefs, traditions, and practices are still a part of the people’s everyday life and in all of their decisions. Privacy, as a sociocultural factor, is more important in Al Mafraq community than in Amman, which is an open and mixed society. Therefore, one contemporary detached house from Al Mafraq city (with traditional spatial organization) was analyzed socially and spatially in order to explore the influence of privacy on the spatial organization of detached houses.

Analysis and Results

Sociospatial Components and Analysis of the Detached House

Figure 1 shows the ground and first floor plan of the selected detached house. It shows all the outdoor spaces, indoor spaces, functions, and circulation system for the detached house. Figure 2 shows the spatial analysis of the first privacy indicator: the quantity of different hierarchical spaces. The outside boundary wall spaces represent the public spaces. The outside family and guest sitting area represent the semipublic places. The guest rooms, guest dining room, office, and guest bathroom represent the semiprivate spaces. The family room, living room, kitchen, and family bathroom represent the first private level. The bedrooms and their personal bathrooms represent the second private level.

Figure 1.

The ground and first floor plan of the selected detached house.

Figure 2.

Image clarifies the quantity of hierarchical spaces in the selected detached house.

Figure 3 shows the analysis of the second privacy indicator: the existence of transitional spaces. There are different transitional spaces: between the public and semipublic spaces, between semipublic spaces themselves, and between semiprivate and private spaces.

Figure 3.

Image highlights the transitional spaces in the ground floor plan of the selected detached house.

Figure 4 shows the analysis of the third and fourth privacy indicator: access to circulation and the existence of intermediate space between the functional spaces. There are different accesses: the main and secondary access, entertainment access, family and services access. Additionally, there is intermediate space and service access between the private spaces and semiprivate spaces.

Figure 4.

Image highlights circulation access and the existence of intermediate space between the functional spaces on the ground floor.

Sociospatial Components and Analysis of the Apartment

Figure 5 shows the floor plan of the selected apartment. It shows all the outdoor spaces, indoor spaces, functions, and circulation system for the selected apartment. Figure 6 shows the spatial analysis of the first privacy indicator: the quantity of different hierarchical spaces. The vertical circulation lobby outside the main door of the apartment represents the public space. Semipublic spaces are not available. The guest room, dining room, and bathroom represent the semiprivate spaces. The bedrooms and their bathrooms represent the private spaces.

Figure 5.

The floor plan of the selected apartment.

Figure 6.

Highlights the quantity of hierarchical spaces in the selected apartment.

Figure 7 shows the analysis of the second privacy indicator: the existence of transitional spaces. There is one transitional space between the semiprivate and private spaces.

Figure 7.

Image highlights the existence of transitional spaces in the selected apartment plan.

Figure 8 shows the analysis of the third and fourth privacy indicator: access to circulation and the existence of intermediate space between the functional spaces. There is one access to all spaces and the intermediate space is not available.

Figure 8.

Image highlights the quantity of circulation access and the existence of intermediate space between the functional spaces of the apartment.

Description of the Design Components for the Detached House and Apartment

Table 2 shows the comparison between the detached house and apartment design in terms of organization and order of spaces, entrances, access of circulation, visibility of the interior space, safety, interior spaces, and the efficiency of outdoor spaces.

Table 2.

Comparative Analysis Between Design Components of the Detached House and the Apartment.

Design factors	Detached house	Apartment
Components and order of the spaces	Public to semipublic to semiprivate to private spaces	Public to semiprivate to private with overlaps between the semiprivate and private spaces
Entrances	Two or more entrances: One is the major entrance for the guests, while the others are minor for the family needs	One entrance
Access of circulation	Two or more accesses: One is short, straight, and leads directly to the guest area, while the others are not direct, long, angled and pass through many functions to reach the family area	One access for all
Visibility of the interior space	From inside to outside	From elevator and staircase lobby to inside
Safety	High, because there are many stages before the house’s front door as well as a fence, high trees, and vegetation	Low, because there is one defined and direct front door
Interior spaces	Wide and more efficient	Narrow with no use
Efficiency of outdoor spaces	High, because users like to spend more time in their outside spaces and yards	Low, because users like to spend more time in public garden spaces

Source. S. A. M. Al Husban, Al Husban and Betawi (2016).

The Results of the Comparative Analysis of the Sociospatial Design

Table 3 shows the comparative assessment of privacy indicators between the detached house and apartment

Table 3.

The Comparative Assessment of Privacy Indicators in Both the Detached House and Apartment.

Privacy indicator	Detached houses	Apartments
Quantity of different hierarchical spaces	Four detached spaces: Public, semipublic, semiprivate, private (two levels)	Three overlapped spaces: Public, semiprivate, private
Transitional spaces	Available	Not available
Quantity of circulation access	Multiple (three accesses)	Single (one or two accesses max)
Intermediate spaces between the functional spaces	Available	Not available

Based on the coding system clarified by the research methodology, Table 4 shows the total scale summation of the privacy need.

Table 4.

Fitting the Privacy Need.

Privacy indicator	Detached houses	Apartments
Quantity of different hierarchical spaces	1	1
Transitional spaces	1	0
Quantity of circulation accesses	1	0
Intermediate spaces between the functional spaces	1	0
Total	4	1

Source. S. A. M. Al Husban, Al Husban and Betawi (2016).

Privacy, as a sociocultural factor and through the spatial organization as a sociospatial design, in the detached house design is very high (the summation score = 4) while in the apartment design is low (the summation score = 1). Because the privacy need indicates the influence of sociocultural factors on spatial organization, the influence of cultural factors on housing design in Jordan is very high in the detached houses and low in the apartment.

The Results of the Comparative Analysis of the Overall Design

In the detached houses, the interior spaces are wider and the outdoor spaces are larger. Additionally, the legibility and visibility of outdoor spaces from indoor spaces is achieved in the detached houses. Even if people’s lifestyle changed, the visibility is maintained from indoor to outdoor and does not allow from outdoor to indoor. This need can be fulfilled in houses easier than in apartments because there are many stages of spaces to cross before reaching the house entrance.

Residents of the detached house feel happier and like to spend more time in their outside spaces. The front yard, backyard, kitchen garden, outdoor shaded sitting areas with special decorations (e.g., fountain, waterfall, and barbeque setting), garage, and kid’s playground become new needs and traditions in the detached houses’ design in Jordan as it shows more luxury and reflects the owner’s lifestyle. In contrast, the apartments have smaller areas, limited number of rooms, and facilities. Additionally, the apartments suffer from a lack of outdoor spaces.

Privacy is not considered as high a priority in the apartment design as it is in the detached house design. In the detached house designs, the spaces are designed in a hierarchical order. The spatial organization starts smoothly from the public space (pedestrian and main gate) to semipublic (shaded guest and family sitting areas, playground, and kids zone), and from semiprivate (entrance hall, lobby, corridor, salon, guest room, and guest dining room) to private spaces (kitchen, living room, bedrooms). In contrast, in the apartments’ design, the spatial organization moves suddenly from the public space (elevator and staircase lobby) to the semiprivate space (door, guest room, living room) and finally to the private zone (bedrooms and bathrooms). In the apartments, the kitchen is located near the guest area while in the house’s design it is located close to the family area to achieve more privacy and freedom for the house owners. In the apartment design, there is an overlap between semiprivate and private spaces, which decreases the design’s ability to fulfill privacy needs.

Moreover, privacy in the detached houses’ design is higher than in the apartments design because the visibility from the interior space to the outside space is possible from all directions. In the apartment, when someone knocks on the door and if the householder keeps the door open, the visibility from the outside (the elevator lobby) to the semiprivate area (salon or guest room) will be clear, which negatively affects feelings of privacy and security. In the detached houses, the bell is located outside the house boundary wall and there is a long distance and different hierarchical spaces between the main entrance and the outside house fence, which conserve privacy and security needs.

Residents of apartments are usually disrupted and annoyed by outside sounds of TVs, radios, cell phone talking, video games, or music, which creates an atmosphere of stress and anxiety most of the time. This forces the residents to go outside the apartment to use public parks, swimming pools, and playgrounds if they are available in the residential neighborhood. However, the detached house design can be considered more efficient in terms of the residents’ privacy and feelings of control, because of the presence of unoverlapped spaces, wide rooms, and availability of different separated spaces for different activities.

This research found that apartment residents do not mind changing their rented apartment to a better one if high specifications are met. In contrast, residents of detached houses try to develop, maintain, remodel, moderate, and facilitate their own house several times instead of moving to a new house, which enhances place attachment and a sense of belonging. Samadi (2013) found that since apartments are smaller, people can be closer to each other, but the family members become far away from each other day-by-day, because each one tries to use his or her own space separately and tries to use outdoor public spaces for recreation or study separately, as well.

It is clear that the difference between the detached house and the apartment is in the components and orders of spaces. The hierarchy in the entrance space is sufficient to prevent any kind of visual interaction both indoor and outdoor. In detached houses, the spaces are divided into four interrelated zones: public, semipublic, semiprivate, and private spaces. The entrance has a spatial order dividing the public from semipublic spaces. Obviously, semipublic space components such as the park, shaded seating areas, garage, playground, and kid’s zone are completely absent in apartment designs.

Overall Results

This research found that the spatial organization and spaces’ hierarchy in detached traditional houses designs in Jordan is affected by cultural factors and overall traditions more than in apartment designs. Specifically, this research found that the spatial organization of detached houses serves privacy and security needs more than the spatial organization of apartments. The high fence, the trees, and the vegetation in front of the detached house increase privacy and support hierarchical spaces. The sense of space in apartments is lower because the residents try to escape and go out from their apartments as much as they can. However, in detached houses, residents like to stay and use all the spaces as much as they can. Currently, some Eastern countries, including Jordan, have conserved the “design–culture” association in detached houses more than in separated residential units such as apartments.

Conclusion

The investigation of the association between cultural beliefs and domestic architecture has taken place in many theoretical and practical domains by focusing on the way the built environment of neighborhoods and cities reflects cultural components of a given society (Richardson, 1989). However, a gap exists regarding the impact of sociocultural factors on sociospatial design (spatial organization and space hierarchy) on the level of housing interior in Jordan (Al Thahab et al., 2014). Privacy is a central and main sociocultural value (Al-Homoud, 2009) and is a major criterion and important factor for both indoor and outdoor sociospatial design (Al Thahab et al., 2014).

The purpose of this research was to explore and investigate the impact of privacy as a sociocultural need on spatial organization and spatial hierarchy as a sociospatial design in both detached houses and apartments in Jordan as a case study of cultural reflection. Privacy can be assessed socially and spatially by studying and analyzing four indicators: the quantity of different hierarchical spaces, the existence of transitional spaces, the quantity of circulation accesses, and the existence of intermediate space between the functional spaces.

This research used the case methods to describe, analyze, and compare the similarities and differences between spatial organization and space hierarchy in light of privacy needs. The data were collected through plans, images, direct observation, and in-depth interviews with residents in both cases. The data were analyzed socially and spatially in regard to circulation, privacy, security, and spatial arrangements of indoor and outdoor spaces.

This research found that spatial organization and spaces’ hierarchy in detached traditional houses designs in Jordan is affected by cultural factors and overall traditions more than in apartment design. Specifically, the spatial organization of detached houses serves privacy and security needs more than the spatial organization of apartments.

Cultural beliefs and traditions in Jordan are strongly reflected in people’s values, practices, activities, and the level of privacy needs. Privacy becomes a social, religious, and personal need that the domestic architecture should accommodate. Culture might shape humans’ worldview, and then both culture and worldview can build social and personal values, define lifestyle, determine specific activities clearly, set resident needs, and design the components of spaces to fulfill those cultural needs.

This research recommends that there is a need to rethink the design of modern, Jordanian apartments to adapt the people’s cultural practices and privacy needs. Future research is needed to replicate and duplicate these same research contents and methodologies with different cultures to fully understand the influence of sociocultural factors on sociospatial architectural designs.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Safa A. M. Al Husban is an assistant professor and she is the dean assistant at the engineering faculty, Al al-Bayt University, Jordan. She was a chair of the architectural engineering department. Her research interest revolves around issues related to architectural design education, hybrid architecture, sociocultural factors in architecture, biophilic design, design strategies, urban design, architectural identity, Architectural Design of Plazas, and social capital.

Ahmad A. S. Al Husban is an assistant professor and he is a chair of the architectural department and dean assistant at the engineering faculty, at the Hashemite University, Jordan. He worked on the architectural design, construction, and supervision in both United Arab Emirates and Jordan. His research interest revolves around issues related to architectural design education, design thinking, creativity in design, design process, design strategies, urban design, social capital, and hybrid architecture.

Yamen Al Betawi is an assistant professor at the Architectural Department at the Hashemite University, Jordan. He had worked on the design and consultation of several architectures, landscape and urban design and planning projects. His research interest revolves around issues related to place making, place identity, design of good cities, urban morphology, housing quality and residential satisfaction, planning and design processes, sustainable development, environmental design and quality of life.

References

Ababsa

Daher

(2011). Citizenship and urban issues in Jordan. Cities, urban practices and nation building in Jordan (pp. 39-64). Beirut, Lebanon: Presses de l’Ifpo.

Abdul Rahim

. (2015). The influence of culture and religion on visual privacy. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 170, 537-544.

Abell

Al Husban

Lurasi

(2013). Habitat, housing, social connectivity to promote social well-being. Design & Nature and Ecodynamics, 8, 356-371.

Abuhakema

G. M.

(2013). Code switching and code mixing in Arabic Written advertisements: Patterns, aspects, and the question of prestige and standardisation. Internet Journal Language, Culture and Society, 38, 173-186.

Al Thahab

Mushatat

Abdelmonem

. (2014). Between tradition and modernity: Determining spatial systems of privacy in the domestic architecture of contemporary Iraq. International Journal of Architectural Research, 8, 238-250.

Al-Homoud

(2009). Privacy control as a function of personal space in single-family homes in Jordan. Journal of Design and Built Environment, 5, 31-48.

Alitajer

Nojoumi

G. M.

(2016). Privacy at home: Analysis of behavioral patterns in the spatial configuration of traditional and modern houses in the city of Hamedan based on the notion of space syntax. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 5, 341-352.

Altman

(1975). Environment and social behavior. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Altman

Chemers

M. M.

(1980). Culture and environment. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

10.

Aryani

M. S.

Mulyadi, & Wahyuningsih

I. E. S.

(2015). The house design transformation: The preferences and the patterns. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 28, 717-724.

11.

Deb

Sinha

(2011). Spatial influence on organizational creativity: Through syntactic analysis of Space. Asian Journal of Management Research, 1(Special Issue No. 1), 114-129.

12.

Deshpande

Korharkar

(2015). “Dwellings” then and now: A topological approach for privacy analysis of “Wada” and Modern houses. In Proceedings of the 10th International Space Syntax Symposium: Book of Abstracts (p. 15). London, England: Space Syntax Laboratory, Bartlett School of Architecture, University College London.

13.

Dursun

Saglamer

(2003, June 17-19). Spatial analysis of different home environments in the city of Trabzon, Turkey. Paper presented at the Fourth International Space Syntax Symposium, London.

14.

Hanson

(1998). Deconstructing architects-houses. Environmental Planning, 21, 675-705.

15.

Hashim

A. H.

Ali

H. M.

Abu Samah

(2009). Urban Malays’ user-behaviour and perspective on privacy and spatial organization of housing. International Journal of Architectural Research, Archnet-IJAR, 3(1), 197-208.

16.

Hosseini

S. R.

Ali

N. E.

(2015). Iranian courtyard housing: The role of social and cultural patterns to reach the spatial formation in the light of an accentuated privacy. ACE: Architecture, City and Environment [Arquitectura, Ciudad Entorno], 10(29), 11-30.

17.

Kamalipour

Zaroudi

(2014). Sociocultural context and vernacular housing morphology: A case study. Current Urban Studies, 2, 220-232.

18.

Kennedy

Buys

Miller

(2015). Residents’ experiences of privacy and comfort in multi-storey apartment dwellings in subtropical Brisbane. Sustainability, 7, 7741-7761.

19.

Kent

(1990). Domestic architecture and the use of space. Cambridge, England: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.

20.

Manesh

F. M.

Latifian

(2015). Analysis of the concept of privacy and its features in house designing (examining the criteria related to privacy and neighborhoods in different cultures). Journal of Applied Environmental and Biological Sciences, 5(12S), 122-133.

21.

Othmann

Aird

Buys

(2015). Privacy, modesty, hospitality, and the design of Muslim homes: A literature review. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 4, 12-23.

22.

Rapoport

(1969). House form and culture (1st ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

23.

Rapoport

(1991). Housing and culture. In Taylor

(Ed.), Housing: Symbol, structure, site (pp. 14-15). New York, NY: Rizzoli.

24.

Richardson

(1989). The artifact as abbreviated act: A social interpretation of material culture. In Hodder

E. A.

Hodder

E. A.

(Eds.), The meaning of things: Material culture and symbolic expression (pp. 172-177). London, England: Unwin Hyman.

25.

Saatci

Onder

D. E.

(2015). Spatial hierarchy on vernacular houses in Eastern Black Sea Region, Turkey. Proceedings of the 10th International Space Syntax Symposium (pp. 1-17). London, England: Space Syntax Laboratory, the Bartlett School of Architecture, University College London.

26.

Samadi

(2013). Investigating the courtyards of traditional houses and the effect of Western architecture. Research Journal of Environmental & Earth Sciences, 6, 112-117.

27.

Shin

J.-h.

(2014). Making home in the age of globalization: A comparative analysis of elderly homes in the U.S. and Korea. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 37, 80-93.

28.

Shirazi. (2005). Transformation of traditional home to modern housing. Pelk Publications.

29.

Stoner

(1997). Book reviews. Journal of Architecture and Planning Research, 14, 83-87.

30.

Tuztasi

Civelek

(2011). From high culture to the folk culture: The notion of national monument and the idealization of vernacular architecture in Western Europe. Journal of International Social Research, 18, 274-289.

31.

Yin

R. K.

(2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.